I would think areas that have harsher penalties for crimes would correlate to areas that have more crime in the same way areas that have more snow plows correlate to areas that have more snow. The more people get victimized the more they are willing to vote in tough on crime representatives.
Because it's still against the rules for the prison, but there's no legal ramifications. If you're a vendor or a staff member you'll likely get fired, if you're a visitor you might no longer be welcome on the premises or something like that, but there's no legal backing for which you could be fined or put in jail yourself. Sort of like 'smuggling' snacks into a movie theater. You might get kicked out or banned if they're super serious but they can't call the police and get you charged with anything.
Congress funds DHS does it not? Maybe just a couple of congressmen have the wherewithal to stand up for foreign domain names that were seized without due process but they ALL have the wherewithal to stand up when they themselves are threatened.
I'm not sure how much it would help. There was a railroad bridge where I grew up that would consistently peel the tops of tractor trailers/delivery trucks open like a can of sardines. There was a plain sign and trucks kept getting ripped open. Then they got a bigger sign and painted the side of the bridge fluorescent and trucks kept getting ripped open. Then they added 3 more signs with flashing yellow lights and trucks are still hitting it. It honestly looks like the Vegas strip with all the shiny crap they got and the drivers still just slam right into it. I'm pretty sure the only way to get them to stop would be to hire a good looking woman to stand there full time and when she sees an overly tall truck to stick her thumb out and flash it. I keep writing the city about it but for some reason they don't like my suggestion.
I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as the US censoring Al Jazeera, I live in the US and both the site and the satellite channel work just fine.
The latter. This story is about defense lawyers asking for a subpoena from a judge during civil cases to prove the plaintiffs are lying or exaggerating.
Where are you getting oppression out of this story? The issue here if you read it is the DEFENSE requesting a subpoena for the Facebook pages to prove the the plaintiff is lying in a civil case. As in, this is only a problem for you if YOU are suing someone else for making your life so miserable you can't get out of the house while at the same time posting a bunch of photos from your recent marathon and kayaking trip on Facebook. This has nothing to do with the State or oppression it's all civil suits.
How is a searchable and shared database lazy policing any more then using a computer spreadsheet instead of pencil and paper lazy accounting or SVN/eclipse instead of floppy disks and VI lazy programming?
Dude, maybe you didn't fully read the GP's original comment but in context your reply sums up to"if the people of Egypt want to drive the Jews into the sea then that's their 'right' to choose as a democratic country." I can't honestly think of a more apt reference to the election of the Nazi party. That being said I don't think it will be that extreme, but I don't think what Egypt will get will be a democracy. At best they'll get to elect their next Dictator or ruling oligarchy sort of like the Palestinian's election of Hamas: Their first, and last, democratic election.
On May 22, 2000 it was reported that since Operation Desert Fox there had been 470 separate incidents of AAA or surface-to-air missile fire at Coalition aircraft and Iraqi aircraft had violated the southern no-fly zone 150 times (source)
Probably because China doesn't fire missiles at our aircraft which are enforcing UN resolutions due to them invading their neighbors?
Right, but he's saying as you travel longer distances you have to add more towers which require more bearings which means more friction. Also a longer rope which means more weight to pull as well. Once you've got a train you can travel any distance you like without adding more bearings, friction or weight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index [wikipedia.org]
countries which have been predominantly socialist in the history of their last 60 years dominate the top of the index. whereas america fluctuates in between a measly and pathetic 12-15th rank from year to year.
If you're talking about year to year and the HDI then as your link clearly points out the United States is number 4 in 2010. Unless of course you want to switch to the IHDI but since it's never been used before 2010 you only have one year of data to work with and you're clearly talking about year-to-year comparisons. But then you probably knew that and decided to switch to whatever measure or algorithm places your country higher that year because good statistics doesn't matter to your nationalist pride and you figured no one would bother reading the link you posted. The very fact that countries could jump around so much on that list from year to year though should tell you that the list isn't very accurate for comparisons between countries based on rankings but perhaps should instead be used for it's intended purpose which is binning countries into development categories of which the United States is in the highest.
Lastly the HDI certainly isn't the end-all be-all of telling you which country is "better" to live in. You could have a country of immortal beings that have infinite wealth but they would only score a.667 if they were all self taught rather than attending education institutions.
Know thine enemy so the only narrative I'm interested in having is the right one. It really is my understanding based upon what I've read that while terrorists (general, not insurgents) are from middle class backgrounds, well educated and not particularly poor or unstable. These are the people who get in with other like-minded people and without outside influence they start to self-radicalize as they re-affirm each others beliefs. This seems to me to be exactly the group you are describing. But I don't think the subset of terrorism which involves suicide bombers specifically fits that bill. I should probably also say that I am talking about Islamic extremist suicide bombers of the type the strap a vest on and blow themselves up in a crowded area whether it be civilian or military targets. I'm sure other cultures have different characteristics.
Your point stands upon one misinterpreted quote from Pape which if read the way you currently are doing so, he completely contradicts in the very next sentence in that Wikipedia article:
Other characteristics Pape found were a difference in religion between the attackers[31] and the occupiers and grassroots support for the attacks.[32] Attackers were disproportionately from the educated middle classes.[33] Characteristics which Pape thought to be correlated to suicide bombing and bombers included: Islam, especially the influence of Salafi Islam;[34] brutality and cruelty of the occupiers;[35] competition among militant groups; and poverty, immaturity, poor education, past history of suicide attempts, or social maladjustment of the attackers.[36]
As a complete off-topic aside. Is there ANY way in this new design to click on the message notification and actually get to the fracking message instead of 8 levels up and having to click through every single level to get to the actual reply? That probably has a good deal to do with my irateness, lol.
Sorry for the irateness, I incorrectly assumed the quote in the reply was meant as a quote of my argument, my apologies. I posted a second response after reading through your Wikipedia link which agrees with what I've read on the subject. Let me quote the section in full from Wikipedia which we're talking about and highlight the discrepancies:
Attackers were disproportionately from the educated middle classes.[33] Characteristics which Pape thought to be correlated to suicide bombing and bombers included: Islam, especially the influence of Salafi Islam;[34] brutality and cruelty of the occupiers;[35] competition among militant groups; and poverty, immaturity, poor education, past history of suicide attempts, or social maladjustment of the attackers
When it says "from the educated middle classes" this is talking about the situation they were born into. That is, their parents were educated and middle class. This does not mean the suicide bombers themselves became college educated middle class citizens. By contrast the suicide bombers themselves have grown up to be poor and lacking in education, dissatisfied with the way their life turned out hence the past history of suicide attempts, and social outcasts. If immaturity and a history of suicide attempts does not classify a person as unstable I'm not sure what does.
In addition if you read one sentence past the one your quoting:
A study of the remains of 110 suicide bombers for the first part of 2007 by Afghan pathologist Dr. Yusef Yadgari, found 80% were missing limbs before the blasts, other suffered from cancer, leprosy, or some other ailments.
And then there's this gem from Pape who makes the educated middle class finding in his study:
Characteristics which Pape thought to be correlated to suicide bombing and bombers included: Islam, especially the influence of Salafi Islam;[34] brutality and cruelty of the occupiers;[35] competition among militant groups; and poverty, immaturity, poor education, past history of suicide attempts, or social maladjustment of the attackers.[36]
So people already missing limbs and dying with past suicide attempts, immature and social outcasts. So not stable, and not level-headed, just as I said. Also the phrase "Coming from the educated middle class" means that's where their parents were and the opportunities they had as a child, not where they live their life before they strap on the vest. You don't see many middle class shop owners strapping on the suicide vest, but you might see the disenfranchised son of one do so.
A college education and middle class standing doesn't preclude a person from being idealistic or unstable. Also you are flat out lying putting the word poor in quotes since I never used it nor ANY word relating to economic status, but don't let that stop you from setting up strawmen to knock down.
If you're a suicide bomber, then can't you be trusted with your own detonator?
Really? You really have to ask if someone whose bright plan is to strap explosives to themselves is level-headed enough to be trusted the with detonator?
And you're capable of building a bomb with a remote detonator, then why would you be a suicide bomber (and not just a "drop it and run" bomber)?
It is very rare that a suicide bomber is also the bomb maker. They are usually some idealistic kid or even mentally handicapped person that the bomb maker or cell takes advantage of and convinces to go blow themselves up. The remote detonator takes away that deciding moment of whether they can really press the button and allows for remote detonation in the case they are ID'd and shot. The use of a suicide bomber makes a statement and display about the "dedication" to the cause and has a larger psychological impact. It also does not leave open the chance for the drop-off guy to get picked up and interrogated.
Minor correction with large implications: micro evolution is observed fact, macro evolution is not. Example: We can and have figured out how to evolve a single species like dogs into all different kinds of dogs, but they are all still a dog. Macro evolution is not observed fact and likely won't ever be because of the timescales needed.
The problem with your line of "reasoning" (and I use the term most charitably), is that you seem to equate the theory of evolution with any number of mythological stories that purport to account for how creation came to be. The first one is not like the others, at all, despite what Glenn Beck and The Creation Museum have managed to make you believe.
So, if you want your kids to be taught about your mythological version of creation so desperately, run your own little class, and stop expecting science teaches to seriously consider your religious beliefs as anything even remotely approaching valid science.
OK, so I've re-read GP's post like 4 times now and I can't find a single place where he makes any reference to his religious beliefs and the only thing he says about his thoughts on evolution is that he doesn't have a problem with it. Where do you get off suddenly deciding he's a witch^H^H creationist believing, glen beck following, creationist Museum curator? I swear, it's people like you who attack anyone and everyone that says anything that isn't overwhelmingly in favor of evolution and smiting the disbelievers thereof with a religious fervor not seen since the crusades that diminishes the worlds view of science and makes it harder to convince people of the truth. Evolution doesn't need your crazed defense anymore than gravity does.
Yes, by the very definition of despot. Despot != human rights violations. Despot != atrocities. Despot means a single ruler with absolute power. An elected official sharing power with 2 other branches of government and whom gives up their office after their term is up because they don't have the power or authority to stay in charge is by definition is not a despot no matter how much you may not like them or the choices they made.
>There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state.
Qatar. i lived there for a few years. less human rights violations, crime, despotism, corruption, justice irregularities than the USA under george w. bush.
the facts are hard to swallow, but there you are.
How do you figure an ABSOLUTE MONARCHY has less despotism than a country under a freely elected president (along with with a freely elected legislative branch) who peacefully gave up office when his term was over. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the actual concept of absolute power despotism requires but it generally doesn't involve being beholden to elections, term limits and an elected legislative branch but instead all power is concentrated in a single unopposed entity sort of like....Qatar? I know everyone hates bush and all, but more then 50% of the voters voted for him in 2004 and voters choosing the "wrong" choice does not despotism make. I know that fact is hard to swallow but there you are.
This was like 3 sentences in a 9 page article. Highlighting this section speaks volumes about the person who submitted the story to Slashdot, and not the NYT itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think areas that have harsher penalties for crimes would correlate to areas that have more crime in the same way areas that have more snow plows correlate to areas that have more snow. The more people get victimized the more they are willing to vote in tough on crime representatives.
Because it's still against the rules for the prison, but there's no legal ramifications. If you're a vendor or a staff member you'll likely get fired, if you're a visitor you might no longer be welcome on the premises or something like that, but there's no legal backing for which you could be fined or put in jail yourself. Sort of like 'smuggling' snacks into a movie theater. You might get kicked out or banned if they're super serious but they can't call the police and get you charged with anything.
Congress funds DHS does it not? Maybe just a couple of congressmen have the wherewithal to stand up for foreign domain names that were seized without due process but they ALL have the wherewithal to stand up when they themselves are threatened.
I'm not sure how much it would help. There was a railroad bridge where I grew up that would consistently peel the tops of tractor trailers/delivery trucks open like a can of sardines. There was a plain sign and trucks kept getting ripped open. Then they got a bigger sign and painted the side of the bridge fluorescent and trucks kept getting ripped open. Then they added 3 more signs with flashing yellow lights and trucks are still hitting it. It honestly looks like the Vegas strip with all the shiny crap they got and the drivers still just slam right into it. I'm pretty sure the only way to get them to stop would be to hire a good looking woman to stand there full time and when she sees an overly tall truck to stick her thumb out and flash it. I keep writing the city about it but for some reason they don't like my suggestion.
I'm not sure I would call a history of starting bar fights "arbitrary criteria" for not allowing a patron into your bar.
I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as the US censoring Al Jazeera, I live in the US and both the site and the satellite channel work just fine.
The latter. This story is about defense lawyers asking for a subpoena from a judge during civil cases to prove the plaintiffs are lying or exaggerating.
Where are you getting oppression out of this story? The issue here if you read it is the DEFENSE requesting a subpoena for the Facebook pages to prove the the plaintiff is lying in a civil case. As in, this is only a problem for you if YOU are suing someone else for making your life so miserable you can't get out of the house while at the same time posting a bunch of photos from your recent marathon and kayaking trip on Facebook. This has nothing to do with the State or oppression it's all civil suits.
How is a searchable and shared database lazy policing any more then using a computer spreadsheet instead of pencil and paper lazy accounting or SVN/eclipse instead of floppy disks and VI lazy programming?
Dude, maybe you didn't fully read the GP's original comment but in context your reply sums up to"if the people of Egypt want to drive the Jews into the sea then that's their 'right' to choose as a democratic country." I can't honestly think of a more apt reference to the election of the Nazi party. That being said I don't think it will be that extreme, but I don't think what Egypt will get will be a democracy. At best they'll get to elect their next Dictator or ruling oligarchy sort of like the Palestinian's election of Hamas: Their first, and last, democratic election.
On May 22, 2000 it was reported that since Operation Desert Fox there had been 470 separate incidents of AAA or surface-to-air missile fire at Coalition aircraft and Iraqi aircraft had violated the southern no-fly zone 150 times (source)
Probably because China doesn't fire missiles at our aircraft which are enforcing UN resolutions due to them invading their neighbors?
Right, but he's saying as you travel longer distances you have to add more towers which require more bearings which means more friction. Also a longer rope which means more weight to pull as well. Once you've got a train you can travel any distance you like without adding more bearings, friction or weight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index [wikipedia.org] countries which have been predominantly socialist in the history of their last 60 years dominate the top of the index. whereas america fluctuates in between a measly and pathetic 12-15th rank from year to year.
If you're talking about year to year and the HDI then as your link clearly points out the United States is number 4 in 2010. Unless of course you want to switch to the IHDI but since it's never been used before 2010 you only have one year of data to work with and you're clearly talking about year-to-year comparisons. But then you probably knew that and decided to switch to whatever measure or algorithm places your country higher that year because good statistics doesn't matter to your nationalist pride and you figured no one would bother reading the link you posted. The very fact that countries could jump around so much on that list from year to year though should tell you that the list isn't very accurate for comparisons between countries based on rankings but perhaps should instead be used for it's intended purpose which is binning countries into development categories of which the United States is in the highest.
Lastly the HDI certainly isn't the end-all be-all of telling you which country is "better" to live in. You could have a country of immortal beings that have infinite wealth but they would only score a .667 if they were all self taught rather than attending education institutions.
Know thine enemy so the only narrative I'm interested in having is the right one. It really is my understanding based upon what I've read that while terrorists (general, not insurgents) are from middle class backgrounds, well educated and not particularly poor or unstable. These are the people who get in with other like-minded people and without outside influence they start to self-radicalize as they re-affirm each others beliefs. This seems to me to be exactly the group you are describing. But I don't think the subset of terrorism which involves suicide bombers specifically fits that bill. I should probably also say that I am talking about Islamic extremist suicide bombers of the type the strap a vest on and blow themselves up in a crowded area whether it be civilian or military targets. I'm sure other cultures have different characteristics.
Other characteristics Pape found were a difference in religion between the attackers[31] and the occupiers and grassroots support for the attacks.[32] Attackers were disproportionately from the educated middle classes.[33] Characteristics which Pape thought to be correlated to suicide bombing and bombers included: Islam, especially the influence of Salafi Islam;[34] brutality and cruelty of the occupiers;[35] competition among militant groups; and poverty, immaturity, poor education, past history of suicide attempts, or social maladjustment of the attackers.[36]
As a complete off-topic aside. Is there ANY way in this new design to click on the message notification and actually get to the fracking message instead of 8 levels up and having to click through every single level to get to the actual reply? That probably has a good deal to do with my irateness, lol.
Attackers were disproportionately from the educated middle classes.[33] Characteristics which Pape thought to be correlated to suicide bombing and bombers included: Islam, especially the influence of Salafi Islam;[34] brutality and cruelty of the occupiers;[35] competition among militant groups; and poverty, immaturity, poor education, past history of suicide attempts, or social maladjustment of the attackers
When it says "from the educated middle classes" this is talking about the situation they were born into. That is, their parents were educated and middle class. This does not mean the suicide bombers themselves became college educated middle class citizens. By contrast the suicide bombers themselves have grown up to be poor and lacking in education, dissatisfied with the way their life turned out hence the past history of suicide attempts, and social outcasts. If immaturity and a history of suicide attempts does not classify a person as unstable I'm not sure what does.
A study of the remains of 110 suicide bombers for the first part of 2007 by Afghan pathologist Dr. Yusef Yadgari, found 80% were missing limbs before the blasts, other suffered from cancer, leprosy, or some other ailments.
And then there's this gem from Pape who makes the educated middle class finding in his study:
Characteristics which Pape thought to be correlated to suicide bombing and bombers included: Islam, especially the influence of Salafi Islam;[34] brutality and cruelty of the occupiers;[35] competition among militant groups; and poverty, immaturity, poor education, past history of suicide attempts, or social maladjustment of the attackers.[36]
So people already missing limbs and dying with past suicide attempts, immature and social outcasts. So not stable, and not level-headed, just as I said. Also the phrase "Coming from the educated middle class" means that's where their parents were and the opportunities they had as a child, not where they live their life before they strap on the vest. You don't see many middle class shop owners strapping on the suicide vest, but you might see the disenfranchised son of one do so.
A college education and middle class standing doesn't preclude a person from being idealistic or unstable. Also you are flat out lying putting the word poor in quotes since I never used it nor ANY word relating to economic status, but don't let that stop you from setting up strawmen to knock down.
If you're a suicide bomber, then can't you be trusted with your own detonator?
Really? You really have to ask if someone whose bright plan is to strap explosives to themselves is level-headed enough to be trusted the with detonator?
And you're capable of building a bomb with a remote detonator, then why would you be a suicide bomber (and not just a "drop it and run" bomber)?
It is very rare that a suicide bomber is also the bomb maker. They are usually some idealistic kid or even mentally handicapped person that the bomb maker or cell takes advantage of and convinces to go blow themselves up. The remote detonator takes away that deciding moment of whether they can really press the button and allows for remote detonation in the case they are ID'd and shot. The use of a suicide bomber makes a statement and display about the "dedication" to the cause and has a larger psychological impact. It also does not leave open the chance for the drop-off guy to get picked up and interrogated.
Minor correction with large implications: micro evolution is observed fact, macro evolution is not. Example: We can and have figured out how to evolve a single species like dogs into all different kinds of dogs, but they are all still a dog. Macro evolution is not observed fact and likely won't ever be because of the timescales needed.
The problem with your line of "reasoning" (and I use the term most charitably), is that you seem to equate the theory of evolution with any number of mythological stories that purport to account for how creation came to be. The first one is not like the others, at all, despite what Glenn Beck and The Creation Museum have managed to make you believe. So, if you want your kids to be taught about your mythological version of creation so desperately, run your own little class, and stop expecting science teaches to seriously consider your religious beliefs as anything even remotely approaching valid science.
OK, so I've re-read GP's post like 4 times now and I can't find a single place where he makes any reference to his religious beliefs and the only thing he says about his thoughts on evolution is that he doesn't have a problem with it. Where do you get off suddenly deciding he's a witch^H^H creationist believing, glen beck following, creationist Museum curator? I swear, it's people like you who attack anyone and everyone that says anything that isn't overwhelmingly in favor of evolution and smiting the disbelievers thereof with a religious fervor not seen since the crusades that diminishes the worlds view of science and makes it harder to convince people of the truth. Evolution doesn't need your crazed defense anymore than gravity does.
Yes, by the very definition of despot. Despot != human rights violations. Despot != atrocities. Despot means a single ruler with absolute power. An elected official sharing power with 2 other branches of government and whom gives up their office after their term is up because they don't have the power or authority to stay in charge is by definition is not a despot no matter how much you may not like them or the choices they made.
>There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state. Qatar. i lived there for a few years. less human rights violations, crime, despotism, corruption, justice irregularities than the USA under george w. bush. the facts are hard to swallow, but there you are.
How do you figure an ABSOLUTE MONARCHY has less despotism than a country under a freely elected president (along with with a freely elected legislative branch) who peacefully gave up office when his term was over. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the actual concept of absolute power despotism requires but it generally doesn't involve being beholden to elections, term limits and an elected legislative branch but instead all power is concentrated in a single unopposed entity sort of like....Qatar? I know everyone hates bush and all, but more then 50% of the voters voted for him in 2004 and voters choosing the "wrong" choice does not despotism make. I know that fact is hard to swallow but there you are.
Better yet, maybe reduce the prison population in general?
That's a dangerous request without qualifiers ;)
This was like 3 sentences in a 9 page article. Highlighting this section speaks volumes about the person who submitted the story to Slashdot, and not the NYT itself.